More on the Value of Pain
From the NYT Arts section:
On Monday, people wept, at least one person fainted and the E.M.S. made a brief visit as Ms. Abramovic repeated her own “Lips of Thomas” from 1975, intermittently the series’ most incendiary work. The artist calmly carved a five-point star in her abdomen with a razor blade, one line every 45 minutes or so (which, over seven hours, meant repeat cuts). There were bouts of intense self-flagellation with a whip and shivering repose on a cross made of large blocks of ice. The piece was cluttered with unnecessary new additions, including a military cap from her father, who was a partisan general in Yugoslavia, and a flag fashioned from the white cloth she used to blot her cuts. Nonetheless, at midnight the audience refused to leave until it had delivered a 10-minute ovation.
Say what you will about your response to this kind of performance, the fact that this sort of thing goes on makes it clear that the value of pleasure and the disvalue of pain are quite contextual. The obvious interpretation is that Abramovic’s pain has value in the context of her artwork, and of her life as an artist. The people who gave her a 10-minute ovation likely see it that way, too. I know of no general theory of value so well-supported that it should give us a compelling reason to resist the obvious interpretation. This is the sort of data you build a general theory on. If your theory says the value of pleasure or pain is invariant, then your theory is false. If it says that the value of pain cannot be positive (or that the value of pleasure cannot be negative), your theory is false. In general we prefer pleasure over pain, and in general pleasure is more valuable than pain, of course. But I think it’s important to see that the value of pleasure and pain, and the value of the various emotions, varies with their role in a situation, and their function in the overall structure of a life.
[Thanks to Joanna for the link.]
5 Comments so far
Leave a reply
Well, *that* was disappointing! The missus is a nurse in a psych hospital, where there’s quite a bit of self-mutilation, but nary a sign of happiness amongst the “artists” in question, I can assure you. This is the sort of data you build a general theory on? What data would that be? What real evidence is there that these “art” aficionados actually lead happy lives.
Oh sure, and back in the day, folks had a hoot watching the gladiators hack each other to pieces in the Coliseum, too. But let’s keep in mind, “the value of the various emotions varies with their role in a situation, and their function in the overall structure of a life.”
As postmodern blather goes, I’m afraid that this is only just about average.
courton, I don’t see why my point was hard to understand. Did you miss: “In general we prefer pleasure over pain, and in general pleasure is more valuable than pain, of course.” People cutting themselves up in psych wards are the very vision of misery.
Nobody’s ever accused me of postmodernism! Anyway, my point is inspired by Aristotle.
First, I’ll apologize somewhat for the snarky tone - I was really taken aback by the idea of performance maiming, or the idea that onlookers would take pleasure from such a thing.
To go off on in another direction, I have doubts about the notion that pleasure is more valuable than pain. Perhaps I’m just thinking out loud, but it seems to me that there can be great opportunity in living through pain and learning how to rise above it. And while our pain is all to often self-inflicted, to do so deliberately and conciously, or to otherwise take pleasure from the actions of one doing so, does not at all strike me as being a sign of healthy, well-integrated personalities.
But hey, sorry for the negativity. I really do appreciate your efforts in the happiness area, and I hope you’ll stick to it for a while!
Your clause, “The obvious interpretation is that Abramovic’s pain has value” seems to leave off the two words “to Abramovic.” Or did you mean “to the audience?” Or both?
If you meant the former, take body modifications, which can be very painful, and are thereafter a source of great personal pride. This is just one example, just the first one I could name, but the idea of the value of pain isn’t unprecedented.
If you meant the latter, take almost any art, music or sport. As spectators, we certainly don’t find it as entertaining watching others *not* be hurt somehow, be it physical, emotional, psychological pain, whatever. Again, the idea of the value of pain isn’t unprecedented.
The point being, although this performance piece underscores those two points rather too well, there isn’t anything here that should take us aback. There is no sign of unbalanced, unhealthy personalities here. Just more evidence that Jane’s Addiction was dead-on nearly twenty years ago: “nothing’s shocking.”
Surely you don’t mean what you said.
One cannot draw a conclusion that pain has value from your example.
If we examine the situation analytically we might conclude that inducing pain in certain social situations has value that may outweigh the cost of the pain itself.
Put it another way, she might get the same effect if she took a magic drug before each event so that each cut felt like eating good vanilla ice cream without telling us she took the drug. The onlookers would get their sick thrill but she would endure no pain.
The pain would therefore continue to have negative value. However, giving the impression of enduring pain is what is important for the
“performance”.